TRC Final Report

Volume 4

Chapter 5

Subsection 9

Misrepresentation of forensic information

53 Forensic information was misused in various ways. Some forensic pathologists omitted crucial information or falsified post mortem reports to cover up the cause of death. There were many cases where doctors misrepresented forensic evidence and findings in court in order to absolve the state of allegations of abuse or criminal activity. This required the collusion of police, lawyers, forensic experts, district surgeons and other health professionals and magistrates and judges. The misuse and manipulation of specialised knowledge is illustrated in a number of case studies selected from submissions to the Commission.

Accidental or deliberate?

Ashley Kriel was shot in 1987 while allegedly resisting arrest and engaging in a scuffle with a security policeman. The police version of events was that, in the course of the arrest, Kriel produced a small .22 pistol. Jeffrey Benzien, the senior police officer involved in the arrest, tried to take the gun away from him. A scuffle ensued during which Ashley Kriel was fatally injured by a bullet wound in the back, fired from his own pistol. The evidence presented by the state forensic experts supported this version of events.

On an examination of the facts, however, numerous inconsistencies are evident. These were not presented to the magistrate by the state witnesses, but were highlighted by the expert forensic witness testifying on behalf of Ashley Kriel’s family. The two assessors sitting with the magistrate, both of whom were forensic experts, also failed to point out the inconsistencies or take them into consideration. The outcome of the inquest was a ‘no blame’ verdict.

Some of the inconsistencies were:

The marks around both of Ashley’s wrists indicated that he had been handcuffed before his death. If the handcuffs were removed, why was this done? If they were not, how could Ashley have engaged in a fight with Benzien, and how could he have shot himself in the back?

The size and nature of the entrance wound in Ashley’s back was consistent with a direct contact wound; in fact, stigmata around the entrance to the wound indicated that the muzzle of the revolver was held directly against the skin. However, the size and nature of the holes in the clothing that he was wearing at the time (a T-shirt and track suit top) were inconsistent with a contact shot.

54 There are some well-known examples of cases where doctors reported false causes of death. These include the numerous detainees who supposedly died from such causes as slipping on a bar of soap, dying of an epileptic seizure where no prior history of epilepsy existed, having a heart attack without a history of heart disease, choking on food or suffocating or committing suicide. In addition, doctors were known to give expert advice on the mental health of deceased prisoners, or to conclude that someone had committed suicide because of mental instability, without ever having met the person involved. This type of evidence was advanced at the inquest into the death of Neil Aggett.

55 Expert forensic evidence of gun shot wounds was also used to determine the distance between the victim and the killer.

Determining shooting distance

In 1986, seven young men were killed in a police ambush in Gugulethu. The police evidence was that all seven were shot from some distance. No contrary evidence was produced by the state experts. Independent forensic experts, however, found evidence of very close range ‘finishing-off’ shots on the bodies of many of the seven victims. One of the victims had, in fact, been shot in the jaw at such close range that there was almost no dispersal of the shotgun pellets, and the felt wad (which contains the pellets) was embedded in his brain. This evidence was presented at the second inquest into the deaths.

Hence, the police version that this person was shot from a distance of a few metres cannot be true. Again, however, a collusion of silence and a tacit agreement to turn a blind eye by lawyers, state forensic experts, police and the magistrate resulted in a ‘no blame’ verdict.

56 Professor Michael Simpson told the Commission that, on one occasion, a doctor gave evidence on the exact time of death of a detainee in order to help absolve a Security Police officer of suspicion; although, using the available technology, it would have been impossible to determine time of death with such precision. As it turned out, the expert had felt the victim’s forehead and pronounced the time of death as having been exactly twenty minutes earlier. A professor of forensic medicine who was acting as an assessor in that case failed to comment on this unusual method of determining the time of death.

Mistake or complicity?²⁹

April Makhwenkwe Tarliwe was killed in KwaZulu-Natal on 19 April 1992. The post mortem was performed by a district surgeon, Dr A Nhlanhla, who reported the cause of death as “fractured base of skull” with mention of a “laceration on the upper lip”. There was no indication in the post mortem report that the deceased had been shot. The district surgeon expressed the opinion that the deceased may have died in a motor car accident.

Subsequently, a member of an Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) hit squad who had been present at the incident (a ‘drive-by’ shooting) confessed to the Investigative Task Unit that Mr Tarliwe had been shot by a member of his squad. This new information and the post mortem report were obviously contradictory, and the Investigative Task Unit arranged for an exhumation.

At the second autopsy, a bullet entrance wound was found in the facial bones below the victim’s nose, and the bullet was found still lodged in the victim’s skull. Either the district surgeon made a mistake or he had been complicit in covering up a crime. If Dr Nhlanhla’s evidence had simply been accepted, a gross miscarriage of justice might have ensued.³⁰

57 These examples demonstrate some of ways in which medical and scientific information was misused or abused. It is difficult to determine the culpability of doctors in these situations, as the evidence may have been destroyed or the doctor could claim to have made a misdiagnosis or an honest mistake. However, there is enough evidence to indicate that these misrepresentations occurred frequently.³¹